One Died For All

[Mark Quayle]

Functionally, what's the difference between "choice" and "free will?" If we are able to choose without compulsion, it seems to me that that's the definition of free will. If there is compulsion, it seems to me it is not valid to say we have a choice.

When I said 'choice', I did not mean 'choose without compulsion'. (Side comment: when I argue with Atheists about free will, they will happily admit cause-and-effect rules, making choice under compulsion ("we are, after all, only higher-order animals"), yet they insist on self-determination. So they object to the logic that puts God (First Cause) at the head of causation ("that makes us mere robots"-- their solution is to eliminate First Cause).)

You say that it seems to you if one is under compulsion it is not valid to say one has choice. I suppose we have some agreement as to what comprises compulsion --after all, you do admit, I guess, that we are all influenced by many things. What the matter of compulsion boils down to, in the end, is what Atheists too admit, that we always choose what we want most, every time, even if it is only what we want most for that moment --that split second. And what the Bible says the lost want most is (at least) always in opposition to God. The Regenerated are (at least) free to want what is truly good and pleasing to God. So both are still under compulsion to choose what they most want (for that moment of decision). The lost are slaves to sin, but we are slaves to Christ. And to what one submits oneself, that is one's master (Romans 6). I don't insist you call it choice though I do call it that. You may call it puppetry, but I have yet to hear from anyone a compelling argument as to why choice is not under compulsion. Cause-and-effect rules, after all, and there are no little "First Causes" running about the planet.

 

[Fervent]

When I said 'choice', I did not mean 'choose without compulsion'. (Side comment: when I argue with Atheists about free will, they will happily admit cause-and-effect rules, making choice under compulsion ("we are, after all, only higher-order animals"), yet they insist on self-determination. So they object to the logic that puts God (First Cause) at the head of causation ("that makes us mere robots"-- their solution is to eliminate First Cause).)

You say that it seems to you if one is under compulsion it is not valid to say one has choice. I suppose we have some agreement as to what comprises compulsion --after all, you do admit, I guess, that we are all influenced by many things. What the matter of compulsion boils down to, in the end, is what Atheists too admit, that we always choose what we want most, every time, even if it is only what we want most for that moment --that split second. And what the Bible says the lost want most is (at least) always in opposition to God. The Regenerated are (at least) free to want what is truly good and pleasing to God. So both are still under compulsion to choose what they most want (for that moment of decision). The lost are slaves to sin, but we are slaves to Christ. And to what one submits oneself, that is one's master (Romans 6). I don't insist you call it choice though I do call it that. You may call it puppetry, but I have yet to hear from anyone a compelling argument as to why choice is not under compulsion. Cause-and-effect rules, after all, and there are no little "First Causes" running about the planet.

You're giving human philosophies the weight of Scripture. And in no way addressed my second point, skirting the issue entirely. When I say "without compulsion" I do not mean unconditionally free, but that the choice is not, ultimately, made either by internal forces(chemistry and electricity, sin nature, etc) or externally(through God's action). If the choice is pre-determined, there is no choice merely the illusion of choice. If the choice is not pre-determined, free will exists.

 

[JAL]

Both [Adam and Lucifer] did precisely as God planned, or there was no reason to create this People (the born again, Elect, Bride of Christ) for himself, to the glory and praise of Christ.

Very peculiar stance. The Problem of Evil is the allegation that suffering contradicts a God defined as infinitely good and powerful. Personally I agree with that allegation, and therefore define Him differently. Historically most theologians proffer a PRETENSE of solving the problem, which is intellectual dishonesty. The Calvinist R.C. Sproul, to my surprise, was honest enough to admit that the Problem of Evil is insoluble. He recognized all traditional "solutions" as superficial. (Again, I personally don't "solve" the problem, I bypass it altogether by defining God differently).

Anyway one of the most popular superficial "solutions" is the following. In answer to the question, "Why did God create a world where suffering is possible", the response is, "because He wanted a people endued with free will, instead of robots/puppets."

Oddly enough, you take the opposite stance. You insist that the only VALID reason to create a world of suffering is to initiate a world of robots/puppets devoid of real libertarian freedom:

Both [Adam and Lucifer] did precisely as God planned, or there was no reason to create this People (the born again, Elect, Bride of Christ) for himself, to the glory and praise of Christ.

Such a God is the ultimate Sadist and Psychopath devoid of a conscience, subjecting even His own Son to needless torture in His deranged quest for morbid pleasure.

BTW, another contradiction emerges here. If God isn't bound to human virtues such as justice, why bother atone? Why not simply place His favorites (the elect) in heaven, and the rest of the world in hell, without the formality of atonement? Doesn't make sense.

 

[JAL]

Always assuming what is to be proven:

Cause-and-effect rules, after all, and there are no little "First Causes" running about the planet.

You might ask how I myself prove that each of us is a sort of First Cause in virtue of free will. Simple. If we forego the assumption of free will, divine retribution becomes unwarranted, arbitrary, and unjust. I don't need any more proof than that.

 

[Fervent]

Very peculiar stance. The Problem of Evil is the allegation that suffering contradicts a God defined as infinitely good and powerful. Personally I agree with that allegation, and therefore define Him differently. Historically most theologians proffer a PRETENSE of solving the problem, which is intellectual dishonesty. The Calvinist R.C. Sproul, to my surprise, was honest enough to admit that the Problem of Evil is insoluble. He recognized all traditional "solutions" as superficial. (Again, I personally don't "solve" the problem, I bypass it altogether by defining God differently).

Anyway one of the most popular superficial "solutions" is the following. In answer to the question, "Why did God create a world where suffering is possible", the response is, "because He wanted a people endued with free will, instead of robots/puppets."

Oddly enough, you take the opposite stance. You insist that the only VALID reason to create a world of suffering is to initiate a world of robots/puppets devoid of real libertarian freedom:



Such a God is the ultimate Sadist and Psychopath devoid of a conscience, subjecting even His own Son to needless torture in His deranged quest for morbid pleasure.

BTW, another contradiction emerges here. If God isn't bound to human virtues such as justice, why bother atone? Why not simply place His favorites (the elect) in heaven, and the rest of the world in hell, without the formality of atonement? Doesn't make sense.

I'd love to discuss the problem of evil with you if you'd want to make a thread, as it seems to me the Bible is absolutely clear God is infinitely good and powerful. In short, I think that the question is improperly formulated and the traditional solutions don't follow Biblical accounts. Suffering is only a problem for God's goodness and power if it is unnecessary for His purposes, and that the Bible gives us a variety of good purposes for suffering.

 

[JAL]

I'd love to discuss the problem of evil with you if you'd want to make a thread, as it seems to me the Bible is absolutely clear God is infinitely good and powerful. In short, I think that the question is improperly formulated and the traditional solutions don't follow Biblical accounts. Suffering is only a problem for God's goodness and power if it is unnecessary for His purposes, and that the Bible gives us a variety of good purposes for suffering.

An infinitely self-sufficient God has no need to create a world of (potential) suffering.

 

[JAL]

And thus He would create it only for the (needless) fun of it, which automatically makes Him a Sadist. That is NOT the definition of being "infinitely good".

 

[Fervent]

An infinitely self-sufficient God has no need to create a world of (potential) suffering.

Yes, but an infinitely self-sufficient God also has no need to create a world. He desired to create a world of free beings, and a consequence of freedom is suffering. The need comes from us, not Him.

 

[JAL]

Yes, but an infinitely self-sufficient God also has no need to create a world. He desired to create a world of free beings, and a consequence of freedom is suffering. The need comes from us, not Him.

An infinitely self-sufficient God, by definition, has no unfulfilled desires.

 

[JAL]

Meaning, any pleasure affordable to Him by creating the world is ALREADY afforded to Him by His own self-sufficiency.

 

[JAL]

I don't think you can formulate a convincing response to post 67.

 

[Fervent]

An infinitely self-sufficient God, by definition, has no unfulfilled desires.

You're forcing a definition that need not exist. God had no need to create the world, it doesn't exist to satisfy some unfulfilled emptiness. But a self-sufficient God has no need to create anything, so purposing existence on something He lacked is the opposite of self-sufficient.

 

[JAL]

You're forcing a definition that need not exist. God had no need to create the world, it doesn't exist to satisfy some unfulfilled emptiness. But a self-sufficient God has no need to create anything, so purposing existence on something He lacked is the opposite of self-sufficient.

You seem to merely be reaffirming self-sufficiency (maybe I missed your point). How does that resolve post 67 ?

 

[Fervent]

I don't think you can formulate a convincing response to post 67.

It's based on an invalid premise, in that it places God's goodness as needful on creation rather than creation as an expression of His goodness. Suffering serves the purpose of refining human beings without directly imposing on their wills and is an expression of goodness not the antithesis to it.

 

[Fervent]

You seem to merely be reaffirming self-sufficiency (maybe I missed your point). How does that resolve post 67 ?

It wasn't meant to be a refutation of that post explicitly, but the very premise of the question. Your objection seems to be based on implying that creation is need-fulfilling for God. Implying an omnipotent God's desires are like our desires in that they are about fulfilling needs is a category error.

 

[JAL]

It's based on an invalid premise, in that it places God's goodness as needful on creation rather than creation as an expression of His goodness. Suffering serves the purpose of refining human beings without directly imposing on their wills and is an expression of goodness not the antithesis to it.

None of the uncreated were sitting around in need of refinement, and certainly weren't asking for it. Suffering won't exist in heaven precisely because it is NOT inherently good. In heaven we'll be holy and thus incapable of hurting each other, ourselves, or God. What you're not explaining is:
(1) Why God didn't just create heaven to begin with, foregoing temptation.
(2) Essentially, why not do everything in His power to preclude suffering, even up to the extent of abstaining from creating (were that necessary).

 

[JAL]

It wasn't meant to be a refutation of that post explicitly, but the very premise of the question. Your objection seems to be based on implying that creation is need-fulfilling for God.

Again, if it doesn't fulfill any need, it is the instigation of suffering-for-the-mere-fun-of-it. We have a word for that in English. It's called Sadism.

 

[JAL]

R.C. Sproul is correct on this point - the Problem of Evil is insoluble, and all traditional "solutions" are superficial.

 

[JAL]

Implying an omnipotent God's desires are like our desires in that they are about fulfilling needs is a category error.

This is the sort of statement that Mark Quayle is continually making - claiming that God is not like us, that He is incomprehensible. That kind of claim spells the end of theology, as I've demonstrated in numerous posts on this thread.

 

[Fervent]

Again, if it doesn't fulfill any need, it is the instigation of suffering-for-the-mere-fun-of-it. We have a word for that in English. It's called Sadism.

Except "sadism" is need-fulfillment in humans, it's merely that the need is satisfied by the suffering of another. You're defining God in terms of creation, rather than the other way around. Suffering isn't necessary for God, nor does He directly gain pleasure from suffering, but WE need suffering in order to achieve our highest good and so God would not be good to deny us the suffering. Think of a parent who refuses to discipline their child, would you consider them a good parent for allowing their child to be a spoiled brat?